What is Ethics?
(Applied Ethics), and "What does 'right' even
At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral
principles. They affect how people make decisions
and lead their lives.
Ethics is concerned with what is good for
individuals and society and is also described as
moral philosophy.
The term is derived from the Greek word ethos
which can mean custom, habit, character or
disposition.
Ethics covers the following dilemmas:
 how to live a good life
 our rights and responsibilities
 the language of right and wrong
 moral decisions - what is good and bad?
Our concepts of ethics have been derived from
religions, philosophies and cultures. They infuse
debates on topics like abortion, human rights and
professional conduct.
Approaches to ethics
Philosophers nowadays tend to divide ethical
theories into three areas: metaethics, normative
ethics, descriptive ethics and applied ethics.
 Meta-ethics deals with the nature of moral
judgement. It looks at the origins and meaning
of ethical principles.
 Normative ethics is concerned with the content
of moral judgements and the criteria for what is
right or wrong.
 Applied ethics looks at controversial topics like
war, animal rights and capital punishment
 Descriptive ethics is a form of empirical
research into the attitudes of individuals or
groups of people. ... Those working on
descriptive ethics aim to uncover people's
beliefs about such things as values, which
actions are right and wrong, and which
characteristics of moral agents are virtuous.
Ethics differs from morals and morality in that ethics
denotes the theory of right action and the greater
good, while morals indicate their practice. Ethics is
not limited to specific acts and defined moral codes,
but encompasses the whole of moral ideals and
behaviors, a person's philosophy of life.
It asks questions like "How should people act?"
(Normative or Prescriptive Ethics), "What do people
think is right?" (Descriptive Ethics), "How do we
take moral knowledge and put it into practice?"
mean?" (Meta-Ethics).
Ethics and other fields
Ethics and Law
Ethics provides us with guides on what is the right
thing to do in all aspects of life, while the law
generally provides more specific rules so that
societies and their institutions can be maintained.
Ethics engages our thinking and also our feelings,
including those of disgust and guilt.
The law does not tell us what to do in relation to
many of the dilemmas and decisions we have to
make in life. While we think obeying the law is an
important basis for role models in our life, we
consider other traits such as benevolence and
empathy as more important in characterizing
someone as a good person.
Doing what you have the right to do – as in doing
something that is not illegal – is not always identical
to doing what is right.
Ethics and Psychology
“Ethics inquires how we ought to will not how we
actually do will. Psychology on the other hand,
deals only with the process of volition as it actually
occurs without reference to the lightness or
wrongness, or to the ultimate conditions which
make lightness and wrongness possible.”
Ethics and Etiquette
Ethics and Etiquette are two concepts that govern
the behavior of human beings. However, there is a
distinct difference between ethics and etiquette.
Ethics refer to a set of moral principles that relates
to the difference between good and bad. Etiquette
is a customary code which indicates the proper and
polite way to behave in society. The main
difference between ethics and etiquette is that
ethics relate to principles or conscience whereas
etiquette is related to behavior.
Environmental Ethics
Environmental ethics is the part of environmental
philosophy which considers the ethical relationship
between human beings and the natural
environment. It exerts influence on a large range of
disciplines including law, sociology, theology,
economics, ecology and geography.
Some of the main topics are global warming,
pollution, and issues are closely tied to those of
poverty, sustainability, and economic and social
justice. Furthermore, since environmental problems
often affect beyond the boundaries of nation-states,
the issues are tied to the fields of international
relations and global governance.
Medical Ethics and Bioethics
Medical ethics deals with study of moral values and
judgments as they apply to medicine. As a
scholarly discipline, medical ethics encompasses
its practical application in clinical settings as well as
work on its history, philosophy, theology, and
sociology. Medical ethics shares many principles
with other branches of healthcare ethics, such as
nursing ethics.
Medical ethics tends to be understood narrowly as
an applied professional ethics, whereas bioethics
appears to have worked more expansive concerns,
touching upon the philosophy of science and the
critique of biotechnology and life science. Still, the
two fields often overlap and the distinction is more
a matter of style than professional consensus.
Some topics include abortion, cloning, euthanasia,
eugenics, and others.
What use is Ethics?
If ethical theories are to be useful in practice, they
need to affect the way human beings behave.
Some philosophers think that ethics does do this.
They argue that if a person realizes that it would be
morally good to do something then it would be
irrational for that person not to do it.
But human beings often behave irrationally - they
follow their 'gut instinct' even when their head
suggests a different course of action.
However, ethics does provide good tools for
thinking about moral issues.
Ethics can provide a moral map
Most moral issues get us pretty worked up - think of
abortion and euthanasia for starters. Because
these are such emotional issues we often let our
hearts do the arguing while our brains just go with
the flow.
But there's another way of tackling these issues,
and that's where philosophers can come in - they
offer us ethical rules and principles that enable us
to take a cooler view of moral problems.
So ethics provides us with a moral map, a
framework that we can use to find our way through
difficult issues.
Ethics can pinpoint a disagreement
Using the framework of ethics, two people who are
arguing a moral issue can often find that what they
disagree about is just one particular part of the
issue, and that they broadly agree on everything
else.
That can take a lot of heat out of the argument, and
sometimes even hint at a way for them to resolve
their problem.
But sometimes ethics doesn't provide people with
the sort of help that they really want.
Ethics doesn't give right answers
Ethics doesn't always show the right answer to
moral problems.
Indeed more and more people think that for many
ethical issues there isn't a single right answer - just
a set of principles that can be applied to particular
cases to give those involved some clear choices.
Some philosophers go further and say that all
ethics can do is eliminate confusion and clarify the
issues. After that it's up to each individual to come
to their own conclusions.
Ethics can give several answers
Many people want there to be a single right answer
to ethical questions. They find moral ambiguity hard
to live with because they genuinely want to do the
'right' thing, and even if they can't work out what
that right thing is, they like the idea that
'somewhere' there is one right answer.
But often there isn't one right answer - there may
be several right answers, or just some least bad
answers - and the individual must choose between
them.
For others moral ambiguity is difficult because it
forces them to take responsibility for their own
choices and actions, rather than falling back on
convenient rules and customs.
Four ethical 'isms'
When a person says "murder is bad" what are they
doing?
That's the sort of question that only a philosopher
would ask, but it's actually a very useful way of
getting a clear idea of what's going on when people
talk about moral issues.
The different 'isms' regard the person uttering the
statement as doing different things.
We can show some of the different things I might
be doing when I say 'murder is bad' by rewriting
that statement to show what I really mean:
 I might be making a statement about an ethical
fact
 "It is wrong to murder"
 This is moral realism
 I might be making a statement about my own
feelings
 "I disapprove of murder"
 This is subjectivism
 I might be expressing my feelings
 "Down with murder"This is emotivism
 I might be giving an instruction or a prohibition
 "Don't murder people"
 This is prescriptivism
Are there universal moral rules?
One of the big questions in moral philosophy is
whether or not there are unchanging moral rules
that apply in all cultures and at all times.
Moral Absolutism
Some people think there are such universal rules
that apply to everyone. This sort of thinking is
called moral absolutism.
Moral absolutism argues that there are some moral
rules that are always true, that these rules can be
discovered and that these rules apply to everyone.
Immoral acts - acts that break these moral rules -
are wrong in themselves, regardless of the
circumstances or the consequences of those acts.
Absolutism takes a universal view of humanity -
there is one set of rules for everyone - which
enables the drafting of universal rules - such as the
Declaration of Human Rights.
Religious views of ethics tend to be absolutist.
Moral Subjectivism
Subjectivism teaches that moral judgments are
nothing more than statements of a person's
feelings or attitudes, and that ethical statements do
not contain factual truths about goodness or
badness.
In more detail: subjectivists say that moral
statements are statements about the feelings,
attitudes and emotions that that particular person or
group has about a particular issue.
If a person says something is good or bad they are
telling us about the positive or negative feelings
that they have about that something.
So if someone says 'murder is wrong' they are
telling us that they disapprove of murder.
These statements are true if the person does hold
the appropriate attitude or have the appropriate
feelings. They are false if the person doesn't.
Emotivism
Emotivism is the view that moral claims are no
more than expressions of approval or disapproval.
This sounds like subjectivism, but in emotivism a
moral statement doesn't provide information about
the speaker's feelings about the topic but
expresses those feelings.
When an emotivist says "murder is wrong" it's like
saying "down with murder" or "murder, yecch!" or
just saying "murder" while pulling a horrified face,
or making a thumbs-down gesture at the same time
as saying "murder is wrong".
So when someone makes a moral judgement they
show their feelings about something. Some
theorists also suggest that in expressing a feeling
the person gives an instruction to others about how
to act towards the subject matter.
Moral Relativism
Moral relativists say that if you look at different
cultures or different periods in history you'll find that
they have different moral rules.
Therefore it makes sense to say that "good" refers
to the things that a particular group of people
approve of.
Moral relativists think that that's just fine, and
dispute the idea that there are some objective and
discoverable 'super-rules' that all cultures ought to
obey. They believe that relativism respects the
diversity of human societies and responds to the
different circumstances surrounding human acts.
Why people disagree with moral relativism:
 Many of us feel that moral rules have more to
them than the general agreement of a group of
people - that morality is more than a super-
charged form of etiquette
 Many of us think we can be good without
conforming to all the rules of society
 Moral relativism has a problem with arguing
against the majority view: if most people in a
society agree with particular rules, that's the
end of the matter. Many of the improvements in
the world have come about because people
opposed the prevailing ethical view - moral
relativists are forced to regard such people as
behaving "badly"
 Any choice of social grouping as the foundation
of ethics is bound to be arbitrary
 Moral relativism doesn't provide any way to
deal with moral differences between societies
Where does ethics come from?
Philosophers have several answers to this
question:
 God and religion
 Human conscience and intuition
 a rational moral cost-benefit analysis of actions
and their effects
 the example of good human beings
 a desire for the best for people in each unique
situation
 political power
God-based ethics - supernaturalism
Supernaturalism makes ethics inseparable from
religion. It teaches that the only source of moral
rules is God.
So, something is good because God says it is, and
the way to lead a good life is to do what God wants.
Divine Command Theory
The Divine command theory (hereafter: DCT) is a
theory of ethics. It states that the difference
between right and wrong is simply that the former is
that which has been commanded by God (or the
gods), while the latter is that which has been
prohibited by God.
Plato’s Euthypro Problem
The DCT was challenged by Plato in his dialogue,
Euthyphro[?]. In this dialogue, Socrates asks
essentially this question:
Is an act good because God commands it, or does
he command it because it is good?
The question is such that either answer seems to
lead to the rejection of the DCT. Firstly, if an act is
good solely because God commands it, then that
would mean that if murder, rape or theft were
divinely commanded, they would be good. This
seems to be absurd, although on some occasions it
has indeed been seriously proposed.
This may provoke a reply to the effect that God
would never command such things, because God
would never command what was wrong. However,
this argument cannot be made if the DCT is to be
maintained - under the DCT, if God commanded
something, it would not be wrong.
Secondly, if God commands an act because it is
good, this again undermines the DCT, as it means
that the act was good independently of God's
commanding it, and therefore being commanded by
God is not the only reason the act is good. Rather,
whatever reason God had for commanding it is the
ultimate reason that it is good.
This line of attack on the DCT is well-enough
known that it is referred to as the Euthyphro
dilemma. Plato is generally believed to have refuted
the DCT outright. However, it should be noted that
certain other theories that link morality to God are
more subtle and are not straightforwardly refuted in
this manner.
Ethical Theories: Part II
The Ethics of Aristotle
The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle's most important
study of personal morality and the ends of human
life, has for many centuries been a widely-read and
influential book. Though written more than 2,000
years ago, it offers the modern reader many
valuable insights into human needs and conduct.
Among its most outstanding features are Aristotle's
insistence that there are no known absolute moral
standards and that any ethical theory must be
based in part on an understanding of psychology
and firmly grounded in the realities of human nature
and daily life. In addition, the book vividly reflects
Aristotle's achievements in other areas of
philosophy and is a good example of his analytical
method, which must be considered the ultimate
basis of all modern scientific research.
People have not changed significantly in the many
years since Aristotle first lectured on ethics at the
Lyceum in Athens. The human types and problems
he discusses are familiar to everyone. The rules of
conduct and explanations of virtue and goodness
that he proposes can all help modern man to attain
a fuller and more satisfying understanding of his
responsibilities as a member of society and the
purpose of his existence. For this alone Aristotle's
book is still worth reading.
Main Points of Aristotle's Ethical Philosophy
1. The highest good and the end toward which all
human activity is directed is happiness, which
can be defined as continuous contemplation of
eternal and universal truth.
2. One attains happiness by a virtuous life and
the development of reason and the faculty of
theoretical wisdom. For this one requires
sufficient external goods to ensure health,
leisure, and the opportunity for virtuous action.
3. Moral virtue is a relative mean between
extremes of excess and deficiency, and in
general the moral life is one of moderation in
all things except virtue. No human appetite or
desire is bad if it is controlled by reason
according to a moral principle. Moral virtue is
acquired by a combination of knowledge,
habituation, and self-discipline.
4. Virtuous acts require conscious choice and
moral purpose or motivation. Man has personal
moral responsibility for his actions.
5. Moral virtue cannot be achieved abstractly — it
requires moral action in a social environment.
Ethics and politics are closely related, for
politics is the science of creating a society in
which men can live the good life and develop
their full potential.
Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics looks at virtue or moral character,
rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the
consequences of actions - indeed some
philosophers of this school deny that there can be
such things as universal ethical rules.
Virtue ethics is particularly concerned with the way
individuals live their lives, and less concerned in
assessing particular actions.
It develops the idea of good actions by looking at
the way virtuous people express their inner
goodness in the things that they do.
To put it very simply, virtue ethics teaches that an
action is right if and only if it is an action that a
virtuous person would do in the same
circumstances, and that a virtuous person is
someone who has a particularly good character.
Consequentialism
This is the ethical theory that most non-religious
people think they use every day. It bases morality
on the consequences of human actions and not on
the actions themselves.
Consequentialism teaches that people should do
whatever produces the greatest amount of good
consequences.
One famous way of putting this is 'the greatest
good for the greatest number of people'.
The most common forms of consequentialism are
the various versions of utilitarianism, which favor
actions that produce the greatest amount of
happiness.
Despite its obvious common-sense appeal,
consequentialism turns out to be a complicated
theory, and doesn't provide a complete solution to
all ethical problems.
Two problems with consequentialism are:
 it can lead to the conclusion that some quite
dreadful acts are good
 predicting and evaluating the consequences of
actions is often very difficult
Consequentialist Theories
It is common for us to determine our moral
responsibility by weighing the consequences of our
actions. According to consequentialism, correct
moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-
benefit analysis of an action's consequences:
Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the
consequences of that action are more favorable
than unfavorable.
Consequentialist normative principles require that
we first tally both the good and bad consequences
of an action. Second, we then determine whether
the total good consequences outweigh the total bad
consequences. If the good consequences are
greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad
consequences are greater, then the action is
morally improper. Consequentialist theories are
sometimes called teleological theories, from the
Greek word telos, or end, since the end result of
the action is the sole determining factor of its
morality.
Consequentialist theories became popular in the
18th century by philosophers who wanted a quick
way to morally assess an action by appealing to
experience, rather than by appealing to gut
intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In fact,
the most attractive feature of consequentialism is
that it appeals to publicly observable consequences
of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are
more precisely formulated than the general
principle above. In particular, competing
consequentialist theories specify which
consequences for affected groups of people are
relevant. Three subdivisions of consequentialism
emerge:
 Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the
consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable only to the agent
performing the action.
 Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the
consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable to everyone except
the agent.
 Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the
consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
All three of these theories focus on the
consequences of actions for different groups of
people. But, like all normative theories, the above
three theories are rivals of each other. They also
yield different conclusions. Consider the following
example. A woman was traveling through a
developing country when she witnessed a car in
front of her run off the road and roll over several
times. She asked the hired driver to pull over to
assist, but, to her surprise, the driver accelerated
nervously past the scene. A few miles down the
road the driver explained that in his country if
someone assists an accident victim, then the police
often hold the assisting person responsible for the
accident itself. If the victim dies, then the assisting
person could be held responsible for the death. The
driver continued explaining that road accident
victims are therefore usually left unattended and
often die from exposure to the country's harsh
desert conditions. On the principle of ethical
egoism, the woman in this illustration would only be
concerned with the consequences of her attempted
assistance as she would be affected. Clearly, the
decision to drive on would be the morally proper
choice. On the principle of ethical altruism, she
would be concerned only with the consequences of
her action as others are affected, particularly the
accident victim. Tallying only those consequences
reveals that assisting the victim would be the
morally correct choice, irrespective of the negative
consequences that result for her. On the principle
of utilitarianism, she must consider the
consequences for both herself and the victim. The
outcome here is less clear, and the woman would
need to precisely calculate the overall benefit
versus disbenefit of her action.
Types of Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully
developed systems of utilitarianism. Two features
of his theory are noteworty. First, Bentham
proposed that we tally the consequences of each
action we perform and thereby determine on a case
by case basis whether an action is morally right or
wrong. This aspect of Bentham's theory is known
as act-utilitiarianism. Second, Bentham also
proposed that we tally the pleasure and pain which
results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure
and pain are the only consequences that matter in
determining whether our conduct is moral. This
aspect of Bentham's theory is known as hedonistic
utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in both of
these aspects.
First, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be
morally wrong to waste time on leisure activities
such as watching television, since our time could
be spent in ways that produced a greater social
benefit, such as charity work. But prohibiting leisure
activities doesn't seem reasonable. More
significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific
acts of torture or slavery would be morally
permissible if the social benefit of these actions
outweighed the disbenefit. A revised version of
utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses
these problems. According to rule-utilitarianism, a
behavioral code or rule is morally right if the
consequences of adopting that rule are more
favorable than unfavorable to everyone. Unlike act
utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of
each particular action, rule-utilitarianism offers a
litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such
as "stealing is wrong." Adopting a rule against theft
clearly has more favorable consequences than
unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same
is true for moral rules against lying or murdering.
Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered
method for judging conduct. A particular action,
such as stealing my neighbor's car, is judged wrong
since it violates a moral rule against theft. In turn,
the rule against theft is morally binding because
adopting this rule produces favorable
consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill's
version of utilitarianism is rule-oriented.
Second, according to hedonistic utilitarianism,
pleasurable consequences are the only factors that
matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too
restrictive since it ignores other morally significant
consequences that are not necessarily pleasing or
painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty and
friendship are valued, yet they are not always
pleasing. In response to this problem, G.E. Moore
proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying
any consequence that we intuitively recognize as
good or bad (and not simply as pleasurable or
painful). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference
utilitarianism, which involves tallying any
consequence that fulfills our preferences.
Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory
Thomas Hobbes developed a normative theory
known as social contract theory, which is a type of
rule-ethical-egoism. According to Hobbes, for
purely selfish reasons, the agent is better off living
in a world with moral rules than one without moral
rules. For without moral rules, we are subject to the
whims of other people's selfish interests. Our
property, our families, and even our lives are at
continual risk. Selfishness alone will therefore
motivate each agent to adopt a basic set of rules
which will allow for a civilized community. Not
surprisingly, these rules would include prohibitions
against lying, stealing and killing. However, these
rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the
rules are enforced. As selfish creatures, each of us
would plunder our neighbors' property once their
guards were down. Each agent would then be at
risk from his neighbor. Therefore, for selfish
reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing
these rules: we create a policing agency which
punishes us if we violate these rules.
Non-consequentialism or Deontological ethics
Non-consequentialism is concerned with the
actions themselves and not with the consequences.
It's the theory that people are using when they refer
to "the principle of the thing".
It teaches that some acts are right or wrong in
themselves, whatever the consequences, and
people should act accordingly.
Kantian Ethics
General Introduction to Kant
– Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the
most influential of all philosophers. Equal in
influence to Plato and Aristotle. Immediately
influenced, for example, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel,
and Schopenhauer.
– Popular adage: “You can philosophise with
Kant, or philosophise against him, but you cannot
philosophise without him.”
– Born in Königsberg, east Prussia. This is now
in Russia (and called Kaliningrad), but was once
part of what is now Germany – he is considered a
German philosopher.
– Kant famously brought Rationalism and
Empiricism together; and thus is credited with the
‘Copernican Revolution in Philosophy’.
– As we shall find, Kant argues that morality is
deontological. ‘Deon’ is Greek for duty. This states
that we do moral acts because they are good-in-
themselves – not because they cause good
consequences, nor because of emotions (either
prior to or after the act).
 For example, we ought to avoid murdering
someone, not because we may end up in
prison, nor because we may feel regret or
remorse, but because it is a wrong thing to do
per se (in itself). This even applies to
murdering a person who may go on to kill
hundreds thereafter.
 Consequentialism, usually as utilitarianism (but
also as ethical egoism, hedonism), states that
an action is good if it causes the most pleasure
and the least pain. So, in some cases, murder
would be morally acceptable. Its main
proponents are Jeremy Bentham and John
Stuart Mill.
Duty
– Some believe that the motivation of our
actions is merely the seeking of pleasure (and
avoidance of pain).
– Against this belief, Kant argues that if
pleasure were the only thing that motivated our
actions, then we would only have instinct to guide
us, as instinct suffices for obtaining pleasure (such
as animals). (From Kant’s ‘Groundwork of a
Metaphysics of Morals’)
– However, humans have reason above
instinct, and this means that our motivations go
beyond mere pleasure.
– So the function of reason is not pleasure or
happiness, but to produce a will that is good in itself
(not good for something else, such as happiness).
– A good will is manifested in acting for the
sake of duty.
– One’s duty is to follow the Categorical
Imperative as not doing so would mean that one
acted for one’s own pleasure. This would mean that
one is misusing reason – being irrational.
– One should therefore follow one’s duty even if
it goes against one’s (pleasurable) desires and
certainly not for the sake of desires (this includes
‘feel-good’ emotions like sympathy or compassion).
– If a person does a good deed at a time when
he is fully occupied with his own troubles, it shows
that he does it out of duty, not natural inclinations.
Categorical Imperative and Maxims
– A maxim is a principle upon which we act.
– A maxim may be good or bad. It is usually not
put into words, but this can be done. For example,
“I will always try to work hard when I have little
money”.
– A subjective maxim is one that is good for the
person. (~a ‘hypothetical imperative’)
“I ought to practice the guitar if I want to become
a professional player.”
– An objective maxim is one which every rational
person would act upon if reason had full control of
his or her actions (not just desire, greed, etc.–
subjective) (‘categorical imperative’).
– Duty is an objective maxim ‘irrespective of all
objects of desire’.
– A good person adopts or rejects a subjective
maxim for any action according to whether or not it
harmonizes with an objective maxim of doing duty
for duty’s sake (not for a personal sake).
– Kant goes on to say that duty is the necessity
to act out of reverence for a universal law.
– An objective maxim is a universal law – our
reverence for it comes from our general reverence
for rationality.
– Kant calls the objective maxim, the
Categorical Imperative:
 ought never to act except in such a way
that I can also will that my maxim should
become a universal law’.
 This is the 1st formulation:
The Formula of Universalizability (or, The
Formula of Universal Law).
The Formula of the End in Itself: This other
important formulation (derived from the first) is:
– Act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always at the same time as an end.
 People are ends-in-themselves(as their
goodwill is unconditioned – all other ends are
conditioned/hypothetical, and thus cannot be
the basis for morality). I.e. without objective
ends, there can be no morality.
 We have a duty not to use ourselves or others
as means to satisfy our inclinations.
 We have a lesser duty seek our own perfection
and the happiness of others.
 This is especially opposed to
consequentialism.
The Formula of the Law of Nature:
 Act as if the maxim of your action were to
become through your will a universal law of
nature.
 We must ask whether, if our subjective maxim
(i.e. thought for an action) were universally
adopted, would it further a systematic harmony
of purposes in the individual and in the human
race. If not, the action would be immoral.
 This formulation depends on a teleological
view of nature – i.e. that everything has a
purpose/telos. This is rejected by,say,
post-Darwinists, for a mechanistic view of
nature.
 This formulation is used by Kant as an
argument as to why suicide is immoral:
one would will that self-preservationwere a
law of nature (a purpose of life), not
therefore its opposite, suicide.
 (This Law was later merged into the first.)
The Formula of Autonomy:
 So act that your will can regard itself at the
same time as making universal law through its
maxim.
 This is merely a combination of the
formulae of Universalizability and End-in-
Itself, highlighting the fact that ‘it is
precisely the fitness of his maxims to make
universal law that marks him out as an
end-in-himself’
 Man is both the creator (as a rational
being) and an essential ground (as an end)
of morality: this emphasises man’s
supreme value.
 e. this is a formulation for self-respect
and respect for mankind.
 (It also emphasizes the fact that
categorical imperatives exclude
interest (subjective desires).)
The Formula of Kingdom-of-Ends:
 So act as if you were through your maxims a
law-making member of a kingdom of ends.
 ‘Kingdom of ends’ = a commonwealth of
people subject to universal laws with all
members constituted as having intrinsic
worth/dignity as ends-in-themselves.
 Consider yourself both law-maker and law-
abider so to become moral.
Imperatives
– There are Hypothetical Imperatives and the
Categorical Imperative
 – Hypothetical Imperatives are conditioned by  Kant divides the universe into phenomena
an end. and noumena.
 Phenomena are the everyday physical
– Hypothetical Imperatives’ good is the means things we perceive.
to the end.  We actually create the phenomenal
 “I ought to study hard, if I want to pass my world by imposing concepts like
exams.” space, time and causality onto the
 End: wanting to pass. Means: studying world in order to understand it.
hard. Good: studying hard, thus as well. – Noumena are the world behind appearances
 therefore studying hard is good. and our concepts (things-in-themselves); how
– Categorical Imperatives are not conditioned – things are beyond our perception (i.e. beyond even
they have no if-clause. time, space and causality).
 “I ought to be honest.” (no “if”) – Free will, Kant writes, actually lies in the
 They are not conditioned (unconditional) noumenal world and is therefore not affected by
because if they did have a condition they prior causes, as causes only exist in the
would not be performed from a good will phenomenal world.
but from a subjective desire and would – So free will can exist and thus can morality.
thus not be moral (but selfish).
 for morality to be possible we must
presume that the maxim (C.I.) upon
which they are performed be
unconditional.
 If there were a condition, an end, the
action would not be moral but selfish.
E.g. “I ought to save his life, if I wish
not to feel guilty forever after” is not a
moral maxim but a hypothetical
imperative.
 Most ‘oughts’ (if not all) in language
are hypothetical (e.g. “I ought to
diet.”).

Free Will
– For Kant, morality is only possible if free will
exists.
– If free will did not exist, then we would not be
free to choose which action to take. In which case
we could not be held responsible (in a positive or
negative way) for our actions (we would be like
programmed robots).
– Free will is free intention.
 This is one aspect of what decides
whether an action is moral:
 A shopkeeper gives back the right
change because he thinks that is his
duty. He is moral
 A shopkeeper gives back the right
change because he thinks the person
will complain if he doesn’t. This is not
moral.
 This shows that mere consequences
(as in utilitarianism) cannot really
explain the morality of an action.
– But how can free will exist if everything is
caused by previous events (determinism)?